Bush’s Hollow Speech
January 14th, 2008The current President Bush’s speech of 13-Jan-2008 in Dubai, warning Iran of destabilising the region and supporting the terrorist Shia groups in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan, is not a thorn in the eye of the IRI. On the contrary, the IRI uses such a hollow rhetoric for its propaganda agenda and especially to heat up its repressive machine against freedom loving people in Iran.
The region that Bush means is mainly Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel; the first two countries are now controlled by the SU-led troops. The third one, Israel and its neighbours, is the major concern for any US administration–whatever party in the Whitehouse, the President tries at the end of his term to cool down the tensions between Israel and its neighbours before leaving the office. This was the case of any President since Jimmy Carter.
However, what no western leader, especially a US one, cares about is the steady human rights catastrophe in this region. From the Arabs’ occupied territories by Israel’s troops to Iran occupied by Mullahs’ troops, the permanent violations of the most basic human rights are ignored. The human dignity, as far as the eye can see, is trampled in this region.
Of course, Bush in his current speech in Dubai had to abandon his rhetoric habit by not attacking “Iran”, but replacing it with the term “the Islamic regime” to probably please many Iranians in Dubai.
Some wonder if Bush’s intellect or moral capacity is sensitive enough to differentiate the word “Iran” from the word “IRI”. However, one may realise that he is not quite ready to respect this difference and it means that the Bush administration intentionally avoids highlighting the difference to really confront the regime.
Bush or his advisers certainly follow Iran’s news, he should have learnt from the official verdicts like the recent amputation of limbs, gouging out of an eye, throwing people from a high and all these unprecedented acts, which all violate any standard of human values, but apparently he would not care about.
Sphere of human rights in Iran has never been a major concern for the West. If ever was one, the tackling of such an issue would be the last tactical warning before planning a military attack or harsh sanctions.
So, in my view, the West is not yet ready to seriously confront the IRI. The point is that the IRI is quite aware of it and can exploit it for its own agenda. This complaisant attitude of the West remains an ever prerequisite for bargain between the West and the IRI despite vocal war.
The Bush’s fiery speech in Dubai is a menace to no one. In this perspective, it would not mean a military attack on Iran before his term.
Loading ...
Loading...
Taliban and Iran? O.o
Bush is so smart…
Great article.
R:
Esra’a, Thank you!
Jina, please instead of depecting, explain your comment.
Jahanshah, I agree with you that in many respects the West is either complacent, or tolerant, or even hypocritical with regard to human rights abuses throughout the world. The simple truth is that there are so many human rights abuses, that if the West was really serious about curbing them, it would involve widespread military and economic involvement around the world. And so, it’s easier just to turn our heads and look the other way.
But the truth is, as you seem to suggest, that turning our heads may no longer be a viable option. The human rights abuses that we ignore will likely come back to haunt us in this world, where everyone can see how the other half lives on their TVs and on the internet. A world that is coming together technologically and economically cannot afford the instability that is inherent in the abuse of human rights.
What may be possible, in my opionion, is to show policy makers that there is a correlation between stability and security for the West, on the one hand, and the spread of economic opportunity and the promotion of human rights, on the other. It wasn’t always like that. In the past, wealthy countries could easily get away with ignoring the fate of people in the developing world. But now, the situation may be quite different. The West will have no choice but to care for the interests of others, as it seeks to promote its own interests.
If our species could somewho evolve into the realization of The Golden Rule, “Treat others as you would have them treat you,” then we would not only live up to our ultimate potential, but we would also create facts on the ground that go a long way to ensure our survival.
R. Nissim Dahan
Formation of institutionalised morality in a level of the international institutions like the UN, EU Council, The Haugue Court,…is of course my ideal too. Such a morality can avoid any abuse of Human Rights and would facilitate harmonious development and stability for all over the world that you mentioned.
I do not believe in conspiracy theory and simply believe that the capitalist system is corrupt in nature. Whereever it is, it creates human problems and social unjustice. However, capitalist is the only international and functional system and we have to adapt with it as long as another alternative is not at hand.
What we can do is to incorporate some humanitarian perspective into it. Concretely, in this perspective, the most democratic, humanist, secularist, and socialists are the available alternative who are expected to ntegrate human rights standards in their politics.
Jahanshah
I didn’t mind Bush talking behind us, he is angry and we are doing whatwe do, but I found it very cute, the way he was holding the sword in his hand and moving it in the air pleased and the king of Bahrain laughing,that was a very cute moment. I guess he needs to come more to this side of the world. People are not as unpleasing as they are pictured
Jahanshah, capitalism, like other political and economic ideologies, does have its strengths and its weaknesses. The strength of capitalism is that it takes basic aspects of human nature, like greed, and ambition, and creativity, and uses these to fuel the engine of economic activity to create wealth. And wealth easily translates into militiary and political power. Therefore, it is easy to see why a great deal of the developed and developing world is moving in this direction.
However, as with all political and economic ideologies, it is easy to move toward extremes, and when you do, whatever good has been accomplished can easily become undone. So, for example, excessive captialism, which remains unchecked, could result in excessive materialism, a loss of idealism, an indifference to the fate of the poor, a disregard for the wellbeing of the environment, an excessive meddling into the affairs of other nations, etc.
It was Aristotle who first made it clear that the truth of a matter usually resides in the middle between two extremes. But actually, Muhammad and Maimonides bought into this as well. So in this case, captitalism does have to potential to create great wealth. And great wealth could be used for the betterment of mankind. But lurking around the corner is the potential for abuse if capitlism is not checked in some way.
I think that it is OK to encourage people to make money, but as you suggest, this effort should be conditioned on using a part of the profits to protect the environment, and to invest in developing nations so that everyone on earth has a place at the table, a stake in his or her future. You might refer to this as “institutionalized morality.”
The one thing that could bring about this fundamental change in the conduct of foreign policy, and economic policy, would be a new ideological framework based on common sense principles which are universally perceived as true, and therefore universally accepted. I think that it is possible to move the world in this direction, since such a move would be in keeping with the generalized move toward a global economy, and would be in response to global problems which are emerging such as Global Warming and Nuclear Proliferation.
In other words, if the world is already becoming smaller technologically and economically, it would have no choice but to become “smaller” ideologically, so that people around the world could begin making money together, with an eye to solving global problems which put them all at risk. The needs of a Global Village will push heavily in the direction of a universal ideological framework with common sense as its hallmark.
@ Jahanshah & Nissim
1) West, I think, supports and pursuits its benefits, not some sort of idealistic humane values. Sometimes its in their favor to ask for democracy, for example in the case of Iran; and some other times, in the case of some well-known examples, its in their advantage to keep quiet. Period.
2) in particular, one might never expect the wealth created in its very essence on the basis of greediness to be or become generous.
in general, an ideology charactrizing our species survival and evolution (or that of any other one) on the basis of personal benefit, can never be expected to ever think of real ethics. the superficial ethics this ideology may come up with, is the result of some materialistic win-win games: “A, as the weaker, convinces B, as the stronger, that He/She can bring B some advantage if B does not suppress Him/Her to the maximum it can. B accepts. Hurray! peace appeared.” that is why famines still kill too many people in Africa, and many people do not care, either in west or in an east raged by such a western ideology… there is no win for them in this case.
3) what happens if I, as the weaker, fail to convince you, as the stronger who gathered and exploited all the opportunities, that I can bring you some advantage? you dont share your opportunities with me. whats the next stage? I threaten you, to show you that the only alternative to win-win is fail-fail. then, you either might succeed to eliminate me or accept to share the opportunities with me. I calm down. then, you, again, try to reduce the extent to which opportunities were share with me…. and again. isnt it so similar to the story we might see here and there in the world?
Mohammad, I agree with your basic premise that most people, particularly nations, act out of self-interest, not out of some lofty idea of ethics or idealism.
And I also accept the premise that a wealthy and powerful country will help the less fortunate only if it deems it to be in its self-interest. There are exceptions, of course, but this is mostly the case.
However, is it possible that the world, as a whole, is moving to that place where there is a convergence between what is right, and what is in everyone’s best interest? And if that’s the case, is it possible to bring about an ideological and economic mindset that will inure to the benefit of all, the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, alike?
It seems to me, that the world is moving in that direction. The powers that be have decided to move toward a global economy. Our increasing knowledge is bringing about an exponential increase in technology, which is being made available to an ever growing marketplace around the world. At the same time, we have problems looming which threaten our very existence, and which will require global cooperation, like Global Warming, Nuclear Proliferation, and the like.
If you put it all together, in certain respects the world is moving toward the rational, in which people will have to deal with one another economically, and technologically, in order to make money, and in order to solve some big-ass problems. Such a world will require a new ideological dialectic in order to function. In other words, we will not be able to tolerate the dissonance between our need to deal with one another rationally, and the idiocy of certain ideological perspectives, no matter where such idiocy continues to prevail.
The new language we need, as you suggest, will not be based on idealism, or wishful thinking. The new framework for rational discourse will have to be based on common sense principles, principles on which we can all agree. In the best of all worlds, Common sense will inspire our thinking and inform our speech. And only the notion of common sense can aspire to the universality that will be required in the new world that is emerging even as we speak.
I believe that An Ideology of Common Sense, if properly conceived, can be given the same sense of universality as mathematics. It is the only hope of coming together ideologically, and of bridging the divides which currently keep us from doing what we need to, to survive.
Nissim:
The process you find ‘converging to a good point’ is supposed to be the worst disaster human kind has ever experiencd, and is called Globalization.
Though advocates of anti-Globalization movement sometimes mereley rely on conspiracy theories, not evey word they utter is nonsense.
Your premise (in common sense theory) is that I (as the weaker) and You (as the stronger) may find a common sense in every situation, i.e. there is a solution in every case upon which both of us might agree on the very basis of personal benefit; yes, thats true, even Game theory supports this idea (for example, refer to this game: Prisoners Dilemma); but I am afraid if we can not generalize this case, and there are a similar number of cases in which my benefit is in conflict with that of yours, and then, we might never come up with a Common Sense, i.e. in which cases the weaker shoud surrender to the stronger.
The thing you need to demonstrate first and foremost is that ‘A Common Sense exists in every situation upon which all might agree’; I’am afraid if you cant do so, though I wish you succeed to do so!
Mohammad:
In your honor, I will post an explanation of An Ideology of Common Sense, within the next day or so. I’m not sure that it will meet your test that, “A Common Sense exists in every situation upon which all might agree.” I’m not sure that any theory can insure universal agreement. But I do suspect that An Ideology of Common Sense can be used to bring enough people together, on enough issues, to help usher in an age of peace, or at least, an age of a lot more cooperation. Common sense will lubricate our dealings with one antoher.
In terms of Globalization, you’re right to point out that it is a two-edged sword. On the good side, globalization can be seen as an endorsement of man’s inclination to progress technologically, and using those advances, to create a world economy, which in turn can help the poor to escape the clutches of extreme poverty by, in effect, partnering with them for the sake of a brighter future.
On the bad side, globalization can be seen as a mixed bag of problems: the homogenization and loss of culture, the increasing gap between rich and poor, the environmental harm, the loss of jobs, the breakdown of traditional societies, the undo emphasis on consumerism and materialism, the threat to democracy, the raising of hopes among the poor which can’t be realized, the threat to biodiversity, the danger of tampering with life, the spreading of disease, the lowering of wages, etc.
So which side is right, Muhammad? My guess is that both sides are right, and therefore the answer is somewhere in the middle. What can I say- Aristotle is the man.
It’s OK to make money, and you’re not going to stop it. But Common Sense would suggest that a portion of the profits should be invested in the developing world, and in protecting the environment. That way, the profit motive is channeled toward the good; the good which may not meet your “universalist test,” but which would improve the lives of millions, which would protect our environment, which would help contain the violence, and which would give us all a better chance of survival.
In a way, Globalization is man’s way of playing God. But guess what, if you want to play God, you had better know the rules of the game. And the rules of the game, when it comes to playing God, are the rules of common sense.
No joke. He’s too stupid to realize that the Taliban is anti-Shi’a and have massacred tens of thousands of Shi’as, and that they are still attacking Shi’as in Pakistan, starting with Parachinar.
Well, first, an administration that has pretty fuzzy ethics when it comes to the definition of torture really shouldn’t be counted on to make strong stances in the field of human rights. Now, as to the question of human rights abuses and what Western powers ( particularly the US can do about them:
-economic sanctions rarely if ever work because the perpetrators of said abuses are usually the controlling elite of the country and thus will starve their population rather than suffer themselves. (In a castle seige, the king and his soldiers starve last)
-diplomatic intervention has become largely meaningless on any signifigant scale, unfortunately due to the gutting of the UN as a meaningful institution, and because an oppressive dictatorship, by it’s nature, is usually not open to reformatory dialogue.
-military intervention: please reference Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and shudder.
In my opinion, the best way for the Western powers to support human rights and good government across the world is to do entirely that. If the US had committed even a tenth of the trillion plus dollars it has spent on it’s military misadventures to supporting moderate political movements and human rights activism in dozens of suffering areas (including Iran) the world would be a far different and better place. can’t continue my daughter isd assaulting my kryboard
Maybe your daughter has a good idea she’s trying to get out?
Eric:
Recently I watched some documentaries in many of which people and analysts from west said that right now, when asked of their abuses, every opressor regime refers to US and says: “you did criticize us for a long time because of military courts we had, because of secret prisons we had, because of tortures we did, because of bills similar to patriot one we passed, ect…; and right now, you UNDERSTAND why we did so, because you are doing the same thing”